aiworkhub_quality_evidence_packet

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by detailing what the packet contains and clarifying that 'not_available != passed' in gate policy metadata. It does not cover error handling or auth, but against a lower bar with annotations, this is solid added value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads 'READ-ONLY' and the core resource name. Every listed element (profile, checks, gate policy, reviewer contract) earns its place, though a clearer verb would improve readability slightly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description gives a good content overview. However, it completely omits the optional changed_paths parameter and offers no usage guidance, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, changed_paths, has zero schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it provides no information about what the parameter does or how it affects the result.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the exact contents of the evidence packet (profile, declared checks, risk-based optional-gate policy metadata, and quality_reviewer contract), which distinguishes it from siblings like aiworkhub_quality_profile and aiworkhub_review_packet. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'fetches') and does not name a sibling to differentiate from, but the content enumeration makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'READ-ONLY' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aiworkhub_quality_profile, aiworkhub_quality_run_checks, or aiworkhub_review_packet. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.